Opinion question: Is Mary Sue Sexist?

[g0ne]

*drinks break time*

 

Come get your drinks! I brought cookies and cake as well! 

 

Everyone has been doing nice, SMILE posts, so I'm going to distribute free food and drinks! Then you guys can get back at it!

 

Erm... may I offer a drinks break, mod senpais? >///<

[Dat Oni]

The only thing remotely "sexist" I can identify from this thread and the tumblr post about the term Mary Sue is that Mary is a girl's name. 

 

I want you all to consider this: If that's enough to warrant the title "sexist", should we be naming girls Dave and the like to avoid it?

 

"Hey Delial, your name is Steve now. You know, so you can be empowered and all."

 

Excuse me while I wait to be stabbed.

 

Let me help you identify what people are talking about, then, since I'm pretty sure you only skimmed the essay in the OP if that's what you got out of it (because that doesn't make sense at all, at least your suggestion afterwards about naming girls after boys. Are you suggesting that girl names are inherently bad? That the author thinks girl names are inherently bad?)

 

The problem the author of that essay and others have is that to them it seems to them that people are far more critical of female characters, overly so, and are more likely to pin the term Mary Sue to an overpowered female character than they are to an overpowered male one, and that people are also more critical of the author's motives behind creating that female character than they would be of an author's motives behind a male character

 

When the author went on the tangent about the gendered names, their point was that the only time we seem to use a feminine word by default is when we're talking about bad characters. It has the implication that most bad characters are female if you aren't careful. Does that make sense?

 

A lot of sense, actually, until I decide to dig into it. So here's my two cents. 

 

The idea that Mary Sue insinuates some sort of hatred towards the female gender, or that female characters alone can be terrifyingly bad, is just wrong. Not long after Mary Sue was coined as a term to describe a specific character mold, and not just the name of a dumb protagonist of a poorly written fanfiction, we came up with a male analogue that meant the same. Whether you call it Gary or Marty Sue, or even John Doe, there exists a term whose mere existence completely contradicts the perceived bias towards women in the bad characters department.

 

These self-indulgent special snowflake characters who always get their way are universally bad whether they are male or female. We're not implying bad characters are usually, or even have to be female. If I concede anything, Mary Sue did come first, but that's just because of timing, and not malicious intent. Mary Sue would still exist if Marty came first. because stupidity is not prejudiced. 

 

If I'm finding anything offensive, right now, I'd say it's the Tumblr post. The question it asks seems loaded, designed to generate as much controversy and hatred as possible, and when broken down, it's quite opinionated. What does this remind me of?

 

Oh right. Troll-posting.

 

 

But that's just a hunch. Serious or no, this Tumblr post makes me sigh and shake my head.

[Flashhelix]

When the author went on the tangent about the gendered names, their point was that the only time we seem to use a feminine word by default is when we're talking about bad characters. It has the implication that most bad characters are female if you aren't careful. Does that make sense?

 

Does that make sense?

 

Not at all.

[Faye]

I really can't see how the term "Mary Sue" is sexist. Even if people are more given to judge female characters more harshly than male in terms on Sue-ishness (which I'm not certain is a thing that really happens on a widespread scale), it just means that the term is being overused by people with a sexist mindset and not that the term itself is sexist.

[Verad]

These self-indulgent special snowflake characters who always get their way are universally bad whether they are male or female. 

Why?

 

I think the original post has some real value in questioning how and why we are willing to deride the power fantasy. I can look to my left and find a shelf full of books that are power-fantasies with self-indulgent special characters that are considered classics.

 

So what the heck happened? It's not that writing got "better," I can tell you that. We aren't in some teleological state where we've discarded the power fantasy as being lesser.

[Warren Castille]

These self-indulgent special snowflake characters who always get their way are universally bad whether they are male or female. 

Why?

 

I think the original post has some real value in questioning how and why we are willing to deride the power fantasy. I can look to my left and find a shelf full of books that are power-fantasies with self-indulgent special characters that are considered classics.

 

So what the heck happened? It's not that writing got "better," I can tell you that. We aren't in some teleological state where we've discarded the power fantasy as being lesser.

 

The same reason "The Room" is considered an awful movie: The trope was defined by writers submitting material for fanzines and fan-publication, and they were only interesting or fun to read if you happened to be the author. While I'm sure they could be marveled upon and enjoyed like all bad media, there's still a line between "So bad it's good" and "so bad it's horrible."

 

Power fantasies are potent things we can lose ourselves in. The key is being able to have a wide-spread audience do that. When it becomes self-obsessed writing it's not accessible, which means it isn't good as a consumer product, which was the original intent.

 

"My Immortal" is not good.

[Edvyn]

 

"My Immortal" is not good.

says you

i for one consider it a masterpiece

[Verad]

 

The same reason "The Room" is considered an awful movie: The trope was defined by writers submitting material for fanzines and fan-publication, and they were only interesting or fun to read if you happened to be the author. While I'm sure they could be marveled upon and enjoyed like all bad media, there's still a line between "So bad it's good" and "so bad it's horrible."

 

Power fantasies are potent things we can lose ourselves in. The key is being able to have a wide-spread audience do that. When it becomes self-obsessed writing it's not accessible, which means it isn't good as a consumer product, which was the original intent.

 

"My Immortal" is not good.

 

Self-obsessed writing can and has been quite commercially successful; Twilight and 50 Shades are very self-obsessed. The usual distinction between commercial success and aesthetic quality applies.

 

But, to be clear, self-obsessed power fantasies can also be aesthetically successful, critically successful, and commercially successful (although for pre-commercial texts like medieval romances and the epics I suppose "culturally successful" might be the better term). While I don't agree with the politics of the movie, American Sniper is a good recent example. Poets did quite well talking about themselves before the modernist movement made poetry inaccessible to the reading public. There's a fair bit of precedent in the commercial sphere for self-obsession and power fantasy to intersect and make a good bit of money in the process to both popular and critical acclaim.

 

But you mention "My Immortal," a text that will never go anywhere near a publisher, not simply because of its aesthetic failings but because it's fanfiction. It's not a commercial text. It is, in someway, unable to be legitimized through the usual channels. I wonder if the author-function has something to do with this.

[Warren Castille]

 

The same reason "The Room" is considered an awful movie: The trope was defined by writers submitting material for fanzines and fan-publication, and they were only interesting or fun to read if you happened to be the author. While I'm sure they could be marveled upon and enjoyed like all bad media, there's still a line between "So bad it's good" and "so bad it's horrible."

 

Power fantasies are potent things we can lose ourselves in. The key is being able to have a wide-spread audience do that. When it becomes self-obsessed writing it's not accessible, which means it isn't good as a consumer product, which was the original intent.

 

"My Immortal" is not good.

 

Self-obsessed writing can and has been quite commercially successful; Twilight and 50 Shades are very self-obsessed. The usual distinction between commercial success and aesthetic quality applies.

 

But, to be clear, self-obsessed power fantasies can also be aesthetically successful, critically successful, and commercially successful (although for pre-commercial texts like medieval romances and the epics I suppose "culturally successful" might be the better term). While I don't agree with the politics of the movie, American Sniper is a good recent example. Poets did quite well talking about themselves before the modernist movement made poetry inaccessible to the reading public. There's a fair bit of precedent in the commercial sphere for self-obsession and power fantasy to intersect and make a good bit of money in the process to both popular and critical acclaim.

 

But you mention "My Immortal," a text that will never go anywhere near a publisher, not simply because of its aesthetic failings but because it's fanfiction. It's not a commercial text. It is, in someway, unable to be legitimized through the usual channels. I wonder if the author-function has something to do with this.

 

Those are pretty fair counterpoints. Twilight began as a sex dream (allegedly) and 50 Shades began as Twilight fan-fiction (allegedly) so I'm wondering if specifically the trigger or missing ingredient is the fan-fiction element. Mary Sue the 1st was fan-fiction. Hell, roleplay itself is effectively fan-fiction. In a similar vein, if someone wrote about killing Gaius and then high-fiving Thancred and then doing a line of coke off of Minfilia's ass, that'd make for some strong emotions in the people who take it "seriously."

 

In an original universe, people tend to give a bye to people being super successful. It's why I think Batman gets a pass (and truthfully, Superman is the far-worse offender. He's a hero to everyone in Metropolis except for Lex Luthor, the one man who is shown to be completely and utterly a bad guy) but fan-fiction featuring Batlad doesn't. Original Characters in existing universes are often hard to swallow.

[Marisa]

These self-indulgent special snowflake characters who always get their way are universally bad whether they are male or female. 

Why?

 

I think the original post has some real value in questioning how and why we are willing to deride the power fantasy. I can look to my left and find a shelf full of books that are power-fantasies with self-indulgent special characters that are considered classics.

 

So what the heck happened? It's not that writing got "better," I can tell you that. We aren't in some teleological state where we've discarded the power fantasy as being lesser.

 

Well, in fiction it's just personal preference. I personally hate just about anything involving superheroes. I think the very idea is insulting to the resilience and ingenuity of normal humans. But certain media appeals to certain people, and not everyone has to like everything.

 

However, it's a bit different when it's a group experience. I myself have had to remove a few people from Pathfinder campaigns because power-tripping ruins the fun for everyone else. Why lead a group of rag-tag adventurers on an epic quest to find Purplebeard's lost gold when your local hyper-wizard can just divine it's location and then teleport it to you? And good news, he didn't even need to get out of bed to do it.  

From an observer perspective, the problem with overpowered characters is that creativity basically requires restrictions. Arthur Dent had infinitely more interesting adventures than Superman ever did, because he was facing similarly impossible issues, but had none of the tools with which Superman solved those problems, forcing him to improvise. This creates compelling narrative. 

 

From an in-world perspective, superheroes cannot coexist with humans in a realistic environment, only rule us. Freedom cannot exist while Superman exists. See, it is established that Superman is greater than the combined might of all humanity. He never loses, he simply has setbacks. But eventually he wins, without fail. In this world, democracy cannot truly exist. Self-determination cannot exist. If we are allowed to make choices, it is only because Superman allows us to. Because if we upset him, he could destroy us all. We would have no recourse against him. No balance of power, no ability to rise up against tyranny. Just helpless ants being vaporized by a flying invincible jackass with laser vision. All of our elections, our wars, our revolutions, our social movements, all made irrelevant just by this one man existing. Countless millions die to shape our world, but for what purpose, when Superman has the final say? 

 

I understand that most people will never try to take a character that far. But there has to be a clear limit.

[Warren Castille]

These self-indulgent special snowflake characters who always get their way are universally bad whether they are male or female. 

Why?

 

I think the original post has some real value in questioning how and why we are willing to deride the power fantasy. I can look to my left and find a shelf full of books that are power-fantasies with self-indulgent special characters that are considered classics.

 

So what the heck happened? It's not that writing got "better," I can tell you that. We aren't in some teleological state where we've discarded the power fantasy as being lesser.

 

Well, in fiction it's just personal preference. I personally hate just about anything involving superheroes. I think the very idea is insulting to the resilience and ingenuity of normal humans. But certain media appeals to certain people, and not everyone has to like everything.

 

However, it's a bit different when it's a group experience. I myself have had to remove a few people from Pathfinder campaigns because power-tripping ruins the fun for everyone else. Why lead a group of rag-tag adventurers on an epic quest to find Purplebeard's lost gold when your local hyper-wizard can just divine it's location and then teleport it to you? And good news, he didn't even need to get out of bed to do it.  

From an observer perspective, the problem with overpowered characters is that creativity basically requires restrictions. Arthur Dent had infinitely more interesting adventures than Superman ever did, because he was facing similarly impossible issues, but had none of the tools with which Superman solved those problems, forcing him to improvise. This creates compelling narrative. 

 

From an in-world perspective, superheroes cannot coexist with humans in a realistic environment, only rule us. Freedom cannot exist while Superman exists. See, it is established that Superman is greater than the combined might of all humanity. He never loses, he simply has setbacks. But eventually he wins, without fail. In this world, democracy cannot truly exist. Self-determination cannot exist. If we are allowed to make choices, it is only because Superman allows us to. Because if we upset him, he could destroy us all. We would have no recourse against him. No balance of power, no ability to rise up against tyranny. Just helpless ants being vaporized by a flying invincible jackass with laser vision. All of our elections, our wars, our revolutions, our social movements, all made irrelevant just by this one man existing. Countless millions die to shape our world, but for what purpose, when Superman has the final say? 

 

I understand that most people will never try to take a character that far. But there has to be a clear limit.

 

There's actually a mostly-excellent series called Irredeemable (and has a sister comic called Incorruptible that I like a lot more) that covers that concept. It's a pretty good takedown of cape comics' politics even if I feel it goes off the deep end about 2/3 of the way through.

 

That's also a good reason why I stated Supes was a better example than Bats is. Batman's character arc has him reaching those points of ingenuity and determination. For all of his ability, he's still just one man trying to do what he feels is right. Superman just... is. If someone's got a grudge against Batman, they can just theoretically beat the crap out of him. If someone's got a grudge against Superman, he can just toss everyone into the sun if they become meddlesome. That's not an interesting story (or it is, it just happens to also be a short one) so writers are forced to go the other direction. Superman can't be reviled in the public opinion without becoming a super villain, so he has to be worshiped and adored by everyone but the paper bad guys.

 

This was a bit of a tangent. Sorry.

[Imo]

I'll just pop in it say that anyone who thinks Superman is a bigger Mary Sue than Batman really hasn't been paying attention to the comic book fandom, and to writers who revere the latter to the point they might as well have a Bat-altar in their bedroom.

[Warren Castille]

I'll just pop in it say that anyone who thinks Superman is a bigger Mary Sue than Batman really hasn't been paying attention to the comic book fandom, and to writers who revere the latter to the point they might as well have a Bat-altar in their bedroom.

 

Well, I'm right here and just posited that point. Care to elaborate on it rather than merely stating it's incorrect? I don't read Superman comics as a rule because I don't find them interesting, so I'm painting with stereotypes on my proverbial brush.

 

I actually don't read many Batman comics, either, just the well-regarded collected stuff that showcases the detective work more than the "preptime, plot armor, deus ex machina" stuff.

 

Superman: Gets the girl, is widely loved by everyone in his city, can do no wrong in the public opinion, all of his villains are clearly the bad guy, and his powers and ability come from his birthright, requiring no effort or practice on his part

 

Batman: Has crippling mental problems, only has a few friends in the whole city, is often criticized as a vigilante, all of his villains are clearly insane, and his powers and ability come from his dedication to the cause, requiring lots of practice, effort and learning through experience which is made possible by his seemingly-infinite millions of dollars

 

Those are the concepts I'm working with here. If we're working with the "effortlessly does everything better than everyone else, and is still regarded by everyone forever" definition of Mary Sue (which is the original use of it) it's not a contest between the two. Not to say that shitty Bat books won't make it look like Batman's a supergenius who knew everything in advance. Those books are just shitty.

[ArmachiA]

I'm just gonna pop in and say there've been a few Fanfictions touched by publishers (50 shades came from Twilight fanfiction and the ever popular "The Mortal Instruments" Series? Harry Potter fanfiction) and it's getting more popular to look for fanfiction authors.

 

"My Immortal" will never get published because it's TERRIBLE.

[Imo]

I'm 99% sure My Immortal was written by a troll.

 

Well, I'm right here and just posited that point. Care to elaborate on it rather than merely stating it's incorrect? I don't read Superman comics as a rule because I don't find them interesting, so I'm painting with stereotypes on my proverbial brush.

 

Sure. Most of Batman fans, and a lot of his writers, consider him an unreachable mental colossus, who can beat anyone with enough preparation. And among nerds, someone who's super-smart is a bigger power fantasy than someone who's super-strong. Especially if through that brain he's able to defeat the super-strong guy.

Batman has a lot of flaws, but they're the cool kinds of flaws, like being mistrusted by The Man, or his obsessive determination. Mary Sues often have those kinds of flaws - flaws that are bad on paper, but in practice their purpose is to showcase how awesome you are.

 

Do note that we're talking about bad writers here. A good writer will create a more three-dimensional image of Batman... But they will also create a more three-dimensional image of Superman. Either character can be written good or bad. Batman has more fanboys, though.

(I actually prefer Batman, despite everything that was said here.)

[Warren Castille]

Sure. Most of Batman fans, and a lot of his writers, consider him an unreachable mental colossus, who can beat anyone with enough preparation. And among nerds, someone who's super-smart is a bigger power fantasy than someone who's super-strong. Especially if through that brain he's able to defeat the super-strong guy.

Batman has a lot of flaws, but they're the cool kinds of flaws, like being mistrusted by The Man, or his obsessive determination. Mary Sues often have those kinds of flaws - flaws that are bad on paper, but in practice their purpose is to showcase how awesome you are.

 

Do note that we're talking about bad writers here. A good writer will create a more three-dimensional image of Batman... But they will also create a more three-dimensional image of Superman. Either character can be written good or bad. Batman has more fanboys, though.

(I actually prefer Batman, despite everything that was said here.)

 

Ah. I always considered Batman's flaws to be the anti-hero ones, which can be its own trope, but I never considered part of the Mary Sue rules. I've always thought of a Sue as someone who is wholesome and wonderful and good and always right and always the best. Bats has some of those in common, maybe, and he's definitely got a formidable set of plot armor and the sort when writers need to use it, but...

 

Well, I'm clearly basing my views on one particular set of guidelines. Thanks for the reply, though.

[Imo]

Ah, Mary Sues often have anti-hero traits these days, with "flaws" such as "gets angry easily" or "anti-authoritarian rebel" or "very protective of friends" or "an angsty loner". And for male Sues especially, it seems like you have to give your character a lot of those. What makes them Sues is that those flaws never kick them in the ass - they're just there to showcase how cool the character is. The character is still always the best and always right, but in an edgy way, not a wholesome and bright way.

[Warren Castille]

Hm. That's an interesting way of looking at it. I suppose they do fall into the "traditional" flaws of Mary Sue types; edgy tropes might be the equivalent to the feminine/female "Gets shy around cute boys" and "is clumsy!" tropes of yesteryear.

[No Longer Exists]

*Peers out from under his hat again*

 

As someone who plays an apparent male "Sue", I will agree that the periphery tends to lean toward accusation. Cap'n tells fantastical stories about himself being truly awesome and is witty enough to "prove" his point (which is that he's amazing). To the casual observer, this can give the impression that he's very much a "Sue". He's egotistical, distrusting, flamboyant, and generally unflappable, which I understand are some characteristics of the male-version. 

 

As evidenced in his story in Town Square, he also plays mix and match with skillsets, using a sword, a stardust rod and a spell-based lightning bolt to stop Cancer (the fate monster, not the ailment) all by himself. We all know that's bullshit and maybe some folks look at the story and wrinkle their nose thinking "Oh joy, an overpowered super-guy." and that's a fair impression to make. I'm actually comfortable with that feeling IC. I hope for characters to roll their eyes and scoff.

 

At the end of the day though, it's an impression. Not a fact. In fiction, by its very nature, there are no facts. It's all conjecture and perspective. This is why I find the concept of these labels so frivolous. -I- know that Cap is full of crap and his stories have some loose truth to them, but have been hyped up with the direct intention of aggrandizing himself. Some characters know that Cap is full of crap too. The fun is in creatively designing these fantastical tales of his and roleplaying his adamant belief in them.

 

Not sure if I'm showing my age or not, but there's a wonderful film out there in cult classic land called "The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" based on a series of "Tall Tales" that I suggest folks enjoy if they haven't already. Tall Tales, by definition in the modern age, were the original "Sue" stories and are a major point in the history of creative fiction. Pecos Bill, John Henry, Munchausen, etc. were all fantastical tales of extraordinary people doing something truly epic. They had no "flaws" to speak of, save for specific concepts like: Outlaw, Slave, Doddering Old Fool rebelling against conformity and hypocrisy. 

 

So where's the difference? What's the point? The blunt, pragmatic answer to the OP's question is "Yes, by grammatical definition, the term "Mary Sue" is sexist because it's a derogatory term aimed at a gender based on societal dislike of characters depicted in a fictional environment." But, that's just my perspective.

 

Prejudice

 

[ltr]prejudice[/ltr]

 

[ltr]

noun

[/ltr]

1. a judgment or opinion formed before the facts are known; preconceived idea, favorable or, more usually, unfavorable
    
    
   
   
   1. 
      
   2. a judgment or opinion held in disregard of facts that contradict it; unreasonable bias: a prejudice against modern art
       
       
      
      
   3. the holding of such judgments or opinions
       
      
      

 

 

 

[*]suspicion, intolerance, or irrational hatred of other races, creeds, regions, occupations, etc.

 

 

[*]injury or harm resulting as from some judgment or action of another or others

 

Or is it just my perspective?

 

*Slinks back under his hat*

[Verad]

From an in-world perspective, superheroes cannot coexist with humans in a realistic environment, only rule us. Freedom cannot exist while Superman exists. See, it is established that Superman is greater than the combined might of all humanity. He never loses, he simply has setbacks. But eventually he wins, without fail. In this world, democracy cannot truly exist. Self-determination cannot exist. If we are allowed to make choices, it is only because Superman allows us to. Because if we upset him, he could destroy us all. We would have no recourse against him. No balance of power, no ability to rise up against tyranny. Just helpless ants being vaporized by a flying invincible jackass with laser vision. All of our elections, our wars, our revolutions, our social movements, all made irrelevant just by this one man existing. Countless millions die to shape our world, but for what purpose, when Superman has the final say? 

 

Again, these are very specific, culturally-informed tastes regarding what is and isn't acceptable fiction and what qualifies as a compelling narrative. Go back as far as or even slightly less than a century and you'll find people arguing that yes, of course a narrative about a being higher than everyone who has the final say can create a compelling narrative. Indeed, it creates what a lot of readers would consider the most important narrative.

 

In short, if you frame Superman as God, as you have in the paragraph above, then only in the past one-two centuries or so are you going to find a readership that's sympathetic to the claim that this is somehow a bad story.

 

Go into the future another decade, another two, another generation, and you're going to find these arguments shift dramatically again. They always do. Right now there's a shift towards not liking characters or narratives about people who are greater-than-average. That's fine. But it may change, and when it does, it won't necessarily be for the worse. It will just mean people value characters who are marked as greater, or special, because of intrinsic worth rather than personal achievement than they do now.

 

Of course, I have to say the above with a grain of salt, because there are hugely popular stories out right now about characters who are marked as being "special" in some way. Divergent series, Harry Potter, most of the urban fantasy novels on the planet - we're actually still pretty okay with "special" in fiction. RPers seem to get a bug up about it more than the average reader.

[Melkire]

Of course, I have to say the above with a grain of salt, because there are hugely popular stories out right now about characters who are marked as being "special" in some way. Divergent series, Harry Potter, most of the urban fantasy novels on the planet - we're actually still pretty okay with "special" in fiction. RPers seem to get a bug up about it more than the average reader.

 

I think this owes itself in large part to the nature of the medium as a collaborative venue unlike any other. In roleplay, you have the potential for two narratives to come up against one another, and if you've two "special" characters and the authors don't take measures and/or don't establish some guidelines early on, they'll find themselves engaged in an arms race until both "special" characters end up so over-the-top that both narratives could be said to suffer for it.

 

You won't find this in most forms of writing. Novels, comic books, television, films: very rarely do you come across two intertwined narratives in which the authors have such vested personal interests that they at times find themselves cross-purposes. In contrast, you see this often in roleplay, on the tabletop, etc.

[Verad]

You won't find this in most forms of writing. Novels, comic books, television, films: very rarely do you come across two intertwined narratives in which the authors have such vested personal interests that they at times find themselves cross-purposes. In contrast, you see this often in roleplay, on the tabletop, etc.

 

Forgive me for pulling a greentext, truly, but:

 

>Comics

>No authors at cross-purposes

 

I've read enough mainstream comics and heard more of the same from friends to know that's so, so untrue.

[Warren Castille]

You won't find this in most forms of writing. Novels, comic books, television, films: very rarely do you come across two intertwined narratives in which the authors have such vested personal interests that they at times find themselves cross-purposes. In contrast, you see this often in roleplay, on the tabletop, etc.

 

Forgive me for pulling a greentext, truly, but:

 

>Comics

>No authors at cross-purposes

 

I've read enough mainstream comics and heard more of the same from friends to know that's so, so untrue.

 

That frequently has to do with authors using the character itself to fire shots at one another. We can all forgive everyone associated with Spider-Man for driving out the Brand New Day storyline.

 

Cross-overs are usually a "share the spotlight until Supes/Bats saves the day" kind of thing. Or if you're Marvel, "share the spotlight until the retcon."

[111]

I have no issues with characters being more powerful, exciting, or lore breaking than my own.

 

It can be refreshing sometimes to RP with characters that are outside the power level of my character. Or who are much more skilled or knowledgeable. It's rather fun to meet someone who can do things no one else can.

 

So I like Mary Sues, as long as they understand what they're doing. I think too many people (including myself) get frightened of being called one, and don't explore things that would be fun.

 

So do something crazy imo. Play as a great black mage, or a white mage, or a warrior of light. Have the powers of a primal, a prince, a general.

 

Don't be afraid of what people will call you.

 

And no... it's not sexist.

[Kage]

I can see what Verad is saying but I have to say I don't quite agree that you can apply the same things. Not all of us roleplay with a GM or an editor. But comics writers, they do.

 

While they have large control of the character(s) they get to play with at that moment in time, they still have control of more than just one.

 

In roleplay, we only have "one". We only have our own characters. I find it a very large exercise to have several people collaborate and work in harmony on a narrative. Being the writer and having an editor allows them to take freer control of more characters' stories and allows them to make the most with minimal need of collaborating with someone else "is it ok if I do this with this character?"